mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 320

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

No slur in FE
..

The missing slur in FE must be a mistake, as in the case of the accent and wedges – see the previous note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 321-324

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Shorter slurs in AsI

Longer slurs in A

Longer slurs in GE (→FE,EE)
..

The slurs of AsI, entered only into these bars (to the end of the page of this manuscript), reveal the initial concept of slurring, showing the quasi-two-part structure of the figurations rather than the actual phrasing.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 334-335

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slurs to b & a1 in A & FE

Slurs to a1 & f1 in GE, possible interpretation

Slurs to b, f1 & a1 in EE, possible interpretation

Slurs to b & f1 in FESB, possible interpretation

Slurs to b & f1 in GE3, possible interpretation
..

In GE, FESB and EE bar 335 opens a new line, which caused the distortion of the slurs ending on the 1st quaver in this bar. In the graphic transcription we reproduce the versions of these editions without changes, whereas in the content transcription (version 'edited text') we give their most likely (according to us) interpretation. In the main text we reproduce the unequivocal notation of A and FE (the notation of FE could have resulted from Chopin's intervention in the copy of GE1 serving him as the basis, since on the basis of the notation of GE it is difficult to guess the correct version, and neither the reviser of EE nor the reviser of FESB succeeded at it).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Revisions in FESB

b. 335-336

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The slurs of AsI are written offhandedly; they signal an intent rather than represent actual marks. This intent were most probably slurs encompassing the entire passage, including the 1st quaver in bar 336.
In A both slurs – both in the R.H. and the L.H. – indicate that the slurs from bar 335 (at the end of a line) should be continued, which is, however, not confirmed by bar 336, which does not contain their endings. In this case, there are no doubts that the slurs are supposed to reach the end of the passage, and this is how it was interpreted in GE (→FE,EE). In FESB the L.H. slur erroneously reaches only the end of bar 335.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 342-343

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur in b. 341-344 in AsI

Slurs in b. 341 & 343 in A (→GE→FESB,EE1→EE2)

3 slurs in b. 341-343 in FE & EE3

2 slurs, our alternative suggestion

Continuous slur, our other suggestion
..

The missing slur over bar 342 is most probably Chopin's oversight, which he corrected in FE. The suggested alternative solutions are modelled on the continuous slur in analogous bars 355-357, whereby in the first one we keep the whole-bar slur over bar 341, entered into A.
In AsI Chopin initially wrote a slur compliant with our second alternative suggestion and then prolonged it to end of bar 344.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of FE